Technically, it's the only way (short of exotic technology like Kerberos) to do this with three different computers that shouldn't trust each other.
Well, maybe you consider https user certificates exotic, but even so, you could always use HTTP GET, which is certainly not exotic.
We were willing to live with that, out out big hang up was that when your mouse hovered over the link, the status bar displayed the full URL with the plaintext authentication information.
Of course. RFCs are just requests for comments. They are broken constantly, in fact, it's impossible to follow them all, because they contradict themselves.
But hey, maybe my computer should support aviary carriers without editing registry entries. Cause hey, it's specified in an RFC.
I love my cell phone. I don't have to be stuck at home when I'm waiting for an important phone call. I can get directions when I get lost trying to find someone's house. I can move from one state to another without changing my phone number. I don't get telemarketing calls. I don't pay for long distance, or caller ID, or voice mail. I can go on trips without being hard to reach. There's an off button. I have instant access to my personal phone book at any time. I get a portable phone which isn't affected by power failures. If I get a flat tire, or find an unconscious person lying in the middle of the street in the middle of nowhere (it's happened) I can use the phone to get help. Cell phones are great. I don't know how I ever lived without them.
There are overruling guidelines in copyright law that allow slashdot to distribute your post if you posted it yourself - you posted it to slashdot, implicitly allowing slashdot to redistribute it, because that is the purpose of slashdot and it was the purpose of your post to have it redistributed.
Well, gee, that's probably why this professor is making students submit the works to Turnitin.com themselves.
This post is Copyright 2004 by Anthony DiPierro. Reproduction of any type without the express written permission of me is prohibited.
What's keeping students from putting a copyright notice on the front page of all their papers, with some boilerplate text
Absolutely nothing. However, just because you write something doesn't mean it's true. Can I sue slashdot for distributing this post?
If it works for Major League Baseball, why can't it work for a student?
Major League Baseball has lost a lot of its copyright fights. Specifically the whole "no description or account of this game" has been thrown out by courts. Doesn't stop them from saying it. But saying it doesn't make it true.
I am ignoring the order because it is neither logical, productive or true to the spirit or the tradition of university.
Of course, if you're teaching an introductory class, I'm sure many students would argue that your class is neither logical, productive, or true to the spririt or the tradition of university.
People are fallible
Yourself included. What if you wrongly identify a cheater, but the student decides that failing the class is better than risking expulsion?
Categorical zero-tolerance punishments and public expulsions are not fitting of any free western institution and they go against my personal sense of justice.
My personal sense of justice is that you should be able to use anything available to you at any time, with or without citing your source. But hey, when the student goes to the school they are told the rules for cheating. They might not be fair, but to hold some students to a different standard than others, based on whether or not they "own up" to their alleged misconduct is even less fair.
The cheater loses 12 months of work and has to repeat the course next year. I believe in reform not punishment.
Start your own school, then. Why should your students get off with a lesser punishment than ones in other classes?
Throwing these people away "just because they broke a rule" is a waste.
Again, that's fine and dandy, and kicking a student out for something which such a large percentage of the students do is not very intelligent. But you don't make the rules of the school, the school does.
A student bitching about "student teacher trust" is akin to a speader bitching about a cop with a RADAR gun.
Actually, technically, cops aren't allowed to use RADAR guns until they have suspicion that someone is speeding. If you ever hear a cop testify in court, he'll say something to the effect of "I observed the defendant travelling at a high rate of speed, at which point I confirmed this with my RADAR gun."
The point of the whole exercise is to confront the student, make it clear that as far as I can see his work is plagiarised and that I can prove it to the disciplinary board if necessary. He will fail the course this year, but has two options in the future: 1) he can take the course again next year with no prejudice from my part; the disciplinary board will not be informed of the incident, 2) he can take me and my evidence to the board right now and let them decide.
I was all with you until that. Don't you have a responsibility to report "proven" cheating to the disiplinary board? I think your ultimatum is quite unfair.
I can't tell if it was intended to be funny, but regardless there is an underlying serious issue: that of on whom the burden of proof lies in questions of guilt or innocence.
Depends on what you want to do. If all you want to do is scan a paper for plagiarism, then there is no burden of proof whatsoever. If, on the other hand, you want to fail a student, then the burden of proof is on the accuser.
All of these things are true, and all of these things are given as reasons to use one of the OTHER two. So by that logic, we should just do nothing and let spam flow free until email is dead.
Oh yeah, and the alternate solution is to redesign SMTP.
Some, perhaps, but the vast majority of spam I get is from an ISP which won't give up the information without a subpoena. That costs money, and to spend that money without even knowing if the identity is going to be someone you can actually collect a judgement from is stupid.
If the spam has an address/phone number, or a domain name, you can find out where the spammer is from there.
The vast majority of spam I get does not have an address/phone number, and that spam with a domain name is almost universally not registered to the spammer himself. When it is, it is commonly registered to a foreign address, which usually isn't even a real address in the first place.
Just because YOU wouldnt do it doesn't mean NO ONE would do it.
Some might waste their time and money a few times, but they'd quickly learn this is a losing situation.
So by that logic, we should just do nothing and let spam flow free until email is dead.
No, the solution to spam is to hold the ISPs responsible, most easily through contractual agreements.
No one's going to file a John Doe lawsuit and track down a spammer through subpoenas just on the off chance that he might live in the United States and not file for bankruptcy. This law may be written to protect spammers, but no law is going to be effective against spam.
Spammers who comply with the law lose all their ability to cover their tracks.
Yeah, but they aren't the ones who the law can be enforced against.
Without relay abuse and proxy abuse, it becomes easy to blackhole their IP ranges. I don't think they can stay in business.
Even with IPv4 there are billions of IP addresses. And blocking IP ranges is going to hit legitimate emailers as well as spammers, when the spammers move on to new IPs and new customers take over those IPs. Are you going to ban all dialup IPs? If so you can do that already, and adding in a block of open relays you can eliminate relay abuse and proxy abuse already.
The law allows five years imprisonment for many of the track-covering tactics that spammers use. I don't know how many counts a typical spammer would be charged with, but I think it's enough to motivate the FBI and US Attorneys.
It's far too easy for spammers to either live outside the United States or to use services outside the United States which won't give up the information needed for the FBI or US Attorneys to catch them.
At some point, they have to touch the real world in order to make money.
Sure, but plenty of the real world lies outside the United States.
I can't tell whether the FBI will enforce this law vigorously. But Congress has given them the weapon they need.
Ah, I see what you're saying. OK. However, I think it's quite obvious that any law is going to have an equal effect on spam, absolutely none. It's too bad a better law wasn't written, though. Maybe then we'd finally have a stop to the people whinging about needing a law.
I have read the law. It's full of loopholes. Yes, the vast majority of current spam is probably covered by it, but it's quite easy for spammers to adapt to the law to comply with it. That is, if it is actually enforced, which I tend to believe it won't be. There's just far too much spam and spammers cover their tracks far too well for the government to enforce any anti-spam law.
Slashdot Mirror
It is actually quite common to not include the cost of the goods sold in expenses.
Parody is sometimes legal, and sometimes illegal. It's much moree complicated thhan just saying "parody is perfectly legal."
You're not allowed to change the lyrics when you make a cover.
Technically, it's the only way (short of exotic technology like Kerberos) to do this with three different computers that shouldn't trust each other.
Well, maybe you consider https user certificates exotic, but even so, you could always use HTTP GET, which is certainly not exotic.
We were willing to live with that, out out big hang up was that when your mouse hovered over the link, the status bar displayed the full URL with the plaintext authentication information.
So why use plaintext? Encrypt it.
On the other hand, http auth URLs are (de facto) standards.
Of course. RFCs are just requests for comments. They are broken constantly, in fact, it's impossible to follow them all, because they contradict themselves.
But hey, maybe my computer should support aviary carriers without editing registry entries. Cause hey, it's specified in an RFC.
The poster by suggesting using 3DES (which is very good) in place of ECC is forcing himself into a situation where a lot of security cannot be done.
Assuming you have a channel which can't be tampered with, but which could be eavesdropped on. I'm not aware of many such channels.
I love my cell phone. I don't have to be stuck at home when I'm waiting for an important phone call. I can get directions when I get lost trying to find someone's house. I can move from one state to another without changing my phone number. I don't get telemarketing calls. I don't pay for long distance, or caller ID, or voice mail. I can go on trips without being hard to reach. There's an off button. I have instant access to my personal phone book at any time. I get a portable phone which isn't affected by power failures. If I get a flat tire, or find an unconscious person lying in the middle of the street in the middle of nowhere (it's happened) I can use the phone to get help. Cell phones are great. I don't know how I ever lived without them.
Turn it off and the boss freaks out and fires you.
Sounds like the boss is the most hated invention.
Information wants to be free. I don't see anything wrong about it.
There are overruling guidelines in copyright law that allow slashdot to distribute your post if you posted it yourself - you posted it to slashdot, implicitly allowing slashdot to redistribute it, because that is the purpose of slashdot and it was the purpose of your post to have it redistributed.
Well, gee, that's probably why this professor is making students submit the works to Turnitin.com themselves.
This post is Copyright 2004 by Anthony DiPierro. Reproduction of any type without the express written permission of me is prohibited.
What's keeping students from putting a copyright notice on the front page of all their papers, with some boilerplate text
Absolutely nothing. However, just because you write something doesn't mean it's true. Can I sue slashdot for distributing this post?
If it works for Major League Baseball, why can't it work for a student?
Major League Baseball has lost a lot of its copyright fights. Specifically the whole "no description or account of this game" has been thrown out by courts. Doesn't stop them from saying it. But saying it doesn't make it true.
I am ignoring the order because it is neither logical, productive or true to the spirit or the tradition of university.
Of course, if you're teaching an introductory class, I'm sure many students would argue that your class is neither logical, productive, or true to the spririt or the tradition of university.
People are fallible
Yourself included. What if you wrongly identify a cheater, but the student decides that failing the class is better than risking expulsion?
Categorical zero-tolerance punishments and public expulsions are not fitting of any free western institution and they go against my personal sense of justice.
My personal sense of justice is that you should be able to use anything available to you at any time, with or without citing your source. But hey, when the student goes to the school they are told the rules for cheating. They might not be fair, but to hold some students to a different standard than others, based on whether or not they "own up" to their alleged misconduct is even less fair.
The cheater loses 12 months of work and has to repeat the course next year. I believe in reform not punishment.
Start your own school, then. Why should your students get off with a lesser punishment than ones in other classes?
Throwing these people away "just because they broke a rule" is a waste.
Again, that's fine and dandy, and kicking a student out for something which such a large percentage of the students do is not very intelligent. But you don't make the rules of the school, the school does.
A student bitching about "student teacher trust" is akin to a speader bitching about a cop with a RADAR gun.
Actually, technically, cops aren't allowed to use RADAR guns until they have suspicion that someone is speeding. If you ever hear a cop testify in court, he'll say something to the effect of "I observed the defendant travelling at a high rate of speed, at which point I confirmed this with my RADAR gun."
The point of the whole exercise is to confront the student, make it clear that as far as I can see his work is plagiarised and that I can prove it to the disciplinary board if necessary. He will fail the course this year, but has two options in the future: 1) he can take the course again next year with no prejudice from my part; the disciplinary board will not be informed of the incident, 2) he can take me and my evidence to the board right now and let them decide.
I was all with you until that. Don't you have a responsibility to report "proven" cheating to the disiplinary board? I think your ultimatum is quite unfair.
Or maybe the professor just doesn't want to agree to the click-through license.
I can't tell if it was intended to be funny, but regardless there is an underlying serious issue: that of on whom the burden of proof lies in questions of guilt or innocence.
Depends on what you want to do. If all you want to do is scan a paper for plagiarism, then there is no burden of proof whatsoever. If, on the other hand, you want to fail a student, then the burden of proof is on the accuser.
Seems like a solution to me, and I'd say it's the best one. What's wrong with the solution?
All of these things are true, and all of these things are given as reasons to use one of the OTHER two. So by that logic, we should just do nothing and let spam flow free until email is dead.
Oh yeah, and the alternate solution is to redesign SMTP.
It's easier than you think to track down spammers
Some, perhaps, but the vast majority of spam I get is from an ISP which won't give up the information without a subpoena. That costs money, and to spend that money without even knowing if the identity is going to be someone you can actually collect a judgement from is stupid.
If the spam has an address/phone number, or a domain name, you can find out where the spammer is from there.
The vast majority of spam I get does not have an address/phone number, and that spam with a domain name is almost universally not registered to the spammer himself. When it is, it is commonly registered to a foreign address, which usually isn't even a real address in the first place.
Just because YOU wouldnt do it doesn't mean NO ONE would do it.
Some might waste their time and money a few times, but they'd quickly learn this is a losing situation.
So by that logic, we should just do nothing and let spam flow free until email is dead.
No, the solution to spam is to hold the ISPs responsible, most easily through contractual agreements.
No one's going to file a John Doe lawsuit and track down a spammer through subpoenas just on the off chance that he might live in the United States and not file for bankruptcy. This law may be written to protect spammers, but no law is going to be effective against spam.
Spammers who comply with the law lose all their ability to cover their tracks.
Yeah, but they aren't the ones who the law can be enforced against.
Without relay abuse and proxy abuse, it becomes easy to blackhole their IP ranges. I don't think they can stay in business.
Even with IPv4 there are billions of IP addresses. And blocking IP ranges is going to hit legitimate emailers as well as spammers, when the spammers move on to new IPs and new customers take over those IPs. Are you going to ban all dialup IPs? If so you can do that already, and adding in a block of open relays you can eliminate relay abuse and proxy abuse already.
The law allows five years imprisonment for many of the track-covering tactics that spammers use. I don't know how many counts a typical spammer would be charged with, but I think it's enough to motivate the FBI and US Attorneys.
It's far too easy for spammers to either live outside the United States or to use services outside the United States which won't give up the information needed for the FBI or US Attorneys to catch them.
At some point, they have to touch the real world in order to make money.
Sure, but plenty of the real world lies outside the United States.
I can't tell whether the FBI will enforce this law vigorously. But Congress has given them the weapon they need.
Unlimited time and money?
Even if it was a GOOD law, though, nothing would happen. They'd have to spend the money to enforce it.
To enforce a good law against spam you'd have to spend more money than the United States government has.
Ah, I see what you're saying. OK. However, I think it's quite obvious that any law is going to have an equal effect on spam, absolutely none. It's too bad a better law wasn't written, though. Maybe then we'd finally have a stop to the people whinging about needing a law.
I have read the law. It's full of loopholes. Yes, the vast majority of current spam is probably covered by it, but it's quite easy for spammers to adapt to the law to comply with it. That is, if it is actually enforced, which I tend to believe it won't be. There's just far too much spam and spammers cover their tracks far too well for the government to enforce any anti-spam law.